M.Bitcha vs The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 453 Tel

Telangana High Court

M.Bitcha vs The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour ... on 7 April, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                        HYDERABAD

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

              Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026

               WRIT PETITION No.30969 of 2010

Between:

M. Bitcha                                           .. Petitioner

                                AND

The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and
another
                                                 .. Respondents
ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed to quash the Award

passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No.40 of 2001, dated

16.03.2009, and grant all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondent No.2, and

perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent

Corporation as a Conductor on 01.08.1993, and he had a good

record of service till he was removed from the service by order,

dated 12.05.2000, by the 2nd respondent. He was conducting

the Bus on 11.01.2000. On that date, a shandy (weekly

market) was held at Venkatpuram, and a number of private

jeeps and Devasthanam buses were transporting passengers

along the route. To increase revenue for the 2nd respondent

Corporation, the petitioner made every effort to complete ticket

issuance on the running bus. At Stage No. 21, 50 passengers

boarded the bus and by the time the bus reached Stop

No.21/22, the petitioner had issued 40 tickets in the running

bus and was counting the number of passengers to tally with

the number of tickets issued.

(b) Meanwhile, a check was exercised, and the

checking officials did not allow the petitioner to complete the

ticket issue and forcibly made him close the SR. As per the

directions of the checking officials, the petitioner had closed

the SR before the completion of the ticket issuance. He was

issued with a charge memo and chargesheet alleging that he

had failed to observe rule of issuance and further alleged that

having collected an amount of Rs.40/- at the boarding point

itself, he failed to issue tickets to batch of 10 passengers who

boarded the bus at Stage No. 21. It was also further alleged

that the petitioner had closed all the denominations in the SR

up to Stage No. 22.

(c) The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation

explaining the circumstances and denied the allegations, but

the 2nd respondent, without considering his explanation,

ordered for an inquiry. A stage-managed inquiry was

conducted in which he was denied a reasonable opportunity to

participate in the inquiry. Before the Inquiry Officer, the

petitioner stated clearly that the checking officials forced him

to close the SR against Stage No.22. Actually, Venkatapur

village lies between stages 21 and 22, and his statement before

the Inquiry Officer remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

(d) On behalf of the 2nd respondent Corporation, one of

the checking officials was examined, and he stated that 50

passengers boarded the bus on Stage No.21, and by the time of

check, the petitioner had issued 40 tickets and 10 passengers

were not issued with the tickets. The Inquiry Officer brushed

aside the legal evidence on record and submitted his report

holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The findings of the

Inquiry Officer are perverse, and the Inquiry Officer failed to

assign any reasons for preferring the statement of the checking

official over the petitioner's unchallenged testimony.

(e) Before the 1st respondent, the petitioner had

challenged the validity of the domestic inquiry and the 1st

respondent upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and

passed an award setting aside the order of removal and

directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into

service with continuity of service, but without back wages and

other attendant benefits and further directed the period of

suspension is to be treated as "not on duty for all purposes."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st

respondent having found that there was irregularity committed

by the checking officials with regard to stages mentioned in

their check report, but curiously, did not take into

consideration the mistake committed by the checking officials

and found that the punishment of removal was

disproportionate and ordered for reinstatement with continuity

of service, but without back wages and other attendant

benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

no reasons were assigned by the 1st respondent for denying the

back wages. The petitioner was out of employment and could

not secure any employment in spite of his best efforts from the

date of removal till the date of reinstatement in June, 2009. At

Stage No. 21, 50 passengers boarded the bus, and, as per the

instructions of the 2nd respondent Corporation, they were to be

picked up as per the rule "hail and board". Therefore, the

charges levelled against the petitioner are untenable and

unsustainable in law, and the reasons assigned by the 1st

respondent denying the petitioner back wages and treating the

period of suspension as "not on duty for all purposes" are

neither sound nor valid in law. Accordingly, prayed to allow

the Writ Petition.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent filed a

counter by contending that the service record of the petitioner

is bereft of a clean record. He was awarded with various

punishments for having been involved in cash and ticket

irregularities as detailed hereunder prior to his removal from

service in the instant case.

      i) Censured                            -- 02 times
      ii) Increment deferred w.c.c.         -- 08 times
      iii) Increment deferred w.o.c.c -- 03 times

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that checking

officials belonging to the Regional Enforcement Squad,

Nalgonda, exercised a check on the petitioner on 11.01.2000 at

about 14.45 hours, while the petitioner was conducting service

bearing No.5208 on the route of Bhadrachlam -

Venkatapuram. During the check, cash and ticket

irregularities were detected, as detailed in the charge Memo

No.160370. After completing the formalities, the charge memo

was prepared on the spot and served on the petitioner, who

acknowledged it without any dispute. The checking officials

noted the irregularities they detected in brief on check sheet

No. 1373224. The top-punched tickets were obtained from all

the ticketless passengers. All the check documents, including

the passengers' statements were attested without any dispute.

The petitioner also offered his spot explanation, in which, he

did not dispute the point of check or the irregularities detected.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that based on

the check report, the irregularities enumerated in the charge

memo, and not convinced with the charge memo explanation,

the disciplinary authority placed the petitioner under

suspension by an order dated 20.01.2000. Based on the

irregularities mentioned in the charge memo and the check

report, the disciplinary authority prepared a chargesheet

contains the following charges and served it on the petitioner

along with all its enclosures.

CHARGES:

i) For having failed to observe the rule issue and start which amounts to misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

ii) For having collected an amount of Rs.40/- at the boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets to a batch of ten (10) passengers found travelling without tickets, having boarded your bus at Pathapuram and bound for Venkatapuram without tickets, ex.stages 21 to 23, which amounts to misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

iii) For having closed the tray numbers of all

without completing the tickets issues, which amounts to misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the

petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet, which was

perused by the 2nd respondent and found to be not convincing.

Thereupon, the disciplinary authority, in order to provide the

petitioner with further opportunity to defend his case and

prove his innocence, ordered a domestic enquiry into the

charges. The Chief Inspector (inquiries), Regional Manager's

Officer, Khammam, was nominated as the Enquiry Officer, and

the petitioner was informed to attend the enquiry as and when

called by the Enquiry Officer. Upon receiving the Enquiry

notice, the petitioner participated in the enquiry.

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that during

the course of the enquiry, one of the checking officials was

examined in support of charges in the presence of the

petitioner. The statement offered by the checking official was

not disputed by the petitioner, who also read it and had it

explained to him. The petitioner even availed the opportunity

provided to cross-examine the checking official. The petitioner

did not deny the existence of the ticketless passengers. All the

enquiry proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were read

over and explained to the petitioner in Telugu, and he certified

that they had been recorded correctly as deposed. He stated

that he was fully satisfied with the conduct of the enquiry.

Thus, a fair and proper enquiry was conducted into the

charges duly, following the principles of natural justice and in

accordance with the Employees CC&A Regulations of APSRTC.

11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the

appeal and review preferred by the petitioner were rejected on

16.06.2000 and 13.11.2000, respectively. The disciplinary

authority carefully perused the enquiry proceedings and other

material and evidence available on record. In the

circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority came to

an independent conclusion that the charges levelled against

the petitioner stand proved and that the charges proved

constitute serious misconduct. As such, the disciplinary

authority came to a provisional conclusion that the

punishment of removal from service is fit and proper to be

imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the disciplinary

authority issued a Show Cause Notice of removal from service

on 19.04.2000, which was sent to the petitioner under RPAD,

together with the enquiry report, proceedings of the enquiry

and the findings of the punishing authority.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, the

having received the Show Cause Notice of removal, the

petitioner had submitted his reply and the same was perused

by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority once

again carefully perused the reply to the Show Cause Notice of

removal together with all the material and evidence available

on record, and in the circumstances of the case, the

disciplinary authority concluded that the charges levelled

against the petitioner constitute misconduct and proved for

which punishment of removal from service is fit and proper to

be imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, final orders of

removal were passed, through Proceedings dated 12.05.2000

and communicated the same to the petitioner at his address

under RPAD.

13. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the

petitioner filed ID No.40 of 2006 questioning the order of

removal before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, under

Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, and the Labour

Court considered the entire facts and evidence available on

record, and rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner through

its Award dated 16.03.2009. The Award of the Labour Court is

on appreciation of the facts and evidence on record and may

not warrant the interference of this Court.

14. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the

submission of the petitioner that the enquiry was not

conducted properly and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were

biased and perverse is without any merit or substance.

Further, the petitioner had not raised any such ground earlier.

The punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of

misconduct. There are no justifiable grounds in the Writ

Petition that warrant the interference of this Hon'ble Court.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

15. Questioning the Award in ID No.40 of 2009, dated

16.03.2009 insofar, as denying the back wages and other

attendant benefits and treating the suspension period as not

on duty. The contention of the petitioner is that without

considering his explanation, an objectively ordered enquiry and

stage-managed enquiry was conducted wherein he was denied

a reasonable opportunity to participate in the enquiry. Against

the said action of the respondent authorities and the impugned

order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and a review, which

were rejected on 16.06.2000 and 13.11.2000, respectively.

16. At the time of checking, actually, the check was exercised

at Mangalraopet, and the petitioner himself admitted that he

had not issued tickets to a batch of 10 passengers. For the

said mistake, he requested the officials to exonerate him, but

the authorities did not consider the same and issued the

charge Memo. The petitioner, on one hand, admitted his guilt

and on the other hand, he submits that Devastanams buses

and three jeeps crossed his bus, and with an intention to get

more revenue to the Corporation and as there were only 4

passengers in the bus, they went to Patrapuram earlier than

the Devansatanm's bus. As such, 50 passengers boarded the

bus, divided into two batches. Immediately, he started the bus

and issued tickets to 40 passengers. In the meantime, the

passengers of charge No.2 tendered Rs.40/-, and the petitioner

was counting the persons, he had not closed the S.R., but the

checking officials insisted that he close it.

17. The place of check is mentioned as 21/22, but in the

charge memo, they have modified it as 22/23. The officials did

not mention the name of the village or the kilometers shown for

proper identification. The petitioner was in start and issue

only, with the intention of increasing revenue to the

Corporation. The petitioner's explanation is not convincing.

Especially, the Corporation will run the buses with the sincere

efforts of the conductors. The main revenue source is the

proper issuance of tickets. If the conductor does not discharge

his duty in a proper manner with sincere efforts, the ultimate

loser is the Corporation.

18. While Awarding the punishment, the Labour Court

observed that as per the Circular No.32/91/OPD(C), dated

24.09.1991 which was issued for job security of the conductors

based on the recommendation of the committee it was held

"that the extreme penalty of removal from service will be

imposed in case of serious cash and ticket irregularities such as

re-issue of tickets, sale of tickets, unconcerned tickets, alteration

in the S.R. and way bill etc.," The Labour Court rightly

observed that the case of the petitioner is that the allegation

against the petitioner is that it is only a case of the collection of

fare, but the non-issuance of the tickets to a batch of 10

passengers till the place of check. In the said circumstances,

the Tribunal found that the punishment of removal is

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and set aside the

order of removal dated 12.05.2000. Based on the petitioner's

past service record and other relevant factors, The Tribunal

directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner

as a conductor with continuity of service, without back wages

and other attendant benefits, and that the period of suspension

is to be treated as not on duty for all purposes.

19. As per the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was punished as

follows:

i) Censured -- 02 times

ii) Increment deferred w.c.c. -- 08 times

iii) Increment deferred w.o.c.c -- 03 times

The petitioner did not dispute the above fact. The said

punishments disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the reliefs

sought by him. However, during the suspension period, the

petitioner might not have secured any employment and

suffered from financial loss to support his family. Moreover,

there are no serious cash and ticket irregularities, in the said

circumstances, this Court is taking a lenient view to modify the

Award passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the Award passed by the

Tribunal in ID No.40 of 2001, dated 16.03.2009, directing the

respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner as a

conductor with continuity of service but without back wages

and other attendant benefits and the period of suspension is to

be treated as not on duty; is modified to that of granting

25% back wages from the date of his removal till the date

of his reinstatement into the service. The Rest of the Award

passed by the Tribunal remains in force.

20. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date:07.04.2026 BDR